If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

While I wish him luck, I consider this form of commercialization to be completely wrong.

Let me quote Syllable:

Originally posted by http://web.syllable.org/pages/about.html

Trying to learn from history:
The problem is that computer technology is very recent, and we are still in the gold rush period. When individuals started buying computers, companies pried the machines from the hands of scientists, and everyone tried to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. When the Internet became popular, they knew they had struck gold, and the miners' train has been unstoppable ever since. Maybe common computer owners are the Indians who got run over. The fact is that computers have never really been designed for common people. First they were made for scientists by scientists, and then they were made by companies to make money. Don't take our word for it, just count the number of advertisements that are on your computer, the computer that you own, that make your computer try to make you buy more stuff from companies. This is just one example of many in the way that personal computers work nowadays. They are too complicated, because scientists originally made them for themselves, and they get in your face because big companies slapped their own agendas on top of them. These are not machines that get out of your way and helpfully do what you want, like a microwave.

If developer ships GPL + own modifications as distribution on CD, then:
if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
if he tries to avoid this, he has to use different license, I suggest proprietary; then he is in contraction with GPL concept and free software as is.

I see DRM, ads, freemium and proprietary license as preprogrammed in this case, just before the project dies.
No one is questioning the absolute necessity of monetary compensation, but its about approach, not altruism.

So, why not offer bounty on features and make people pay for his work, instead of copies?

Comment

If developer ships GPL + own modifications as distribution on CD, then:
if his modifications are GPL too, he has to provide source to anyone, once public distributed; and he can't use any restrictions for further distribution even at zero cost.
if he tries to avoid this, he has to use different license, I suggest proprietary; then he is in contraction with GPL concept and free software as is.

I think we all know about this, but there's nothing on the website that leads me to think they are trying to avoid the GPL. In fact, having this U$S4.99 version with no updates makes me think they acknowledge people are free to redistribute, so they will make it expensive to maintain a parallel distribution with updates.

So the title relates to the article how, exactly? I don't know about you, but I expect titles to tell me if something might interest me or not. For this, I need them to actually be a brief "this is what the article is about".
Also, most of the article talks about the (already informed) ways it's being commercialized. Only the last paragraph tells us about package changes.

Comment

I think we all know about this, but there's nothing on the website that leads me to think they are trying to avoid the GPL. In fact, having this U$S4.99 version with no updates makes me think they acknowledge people are free to redistribute, so they will make it expensive to maintain a parallel distribution with updates.

Then you have a distro, than needs to be paid to keep updating, or it be a freemium split with ads, then possible centos-ish split with a RHate of upstream, everyone slowing down and exchanging "wishes"; - instead of having a free OS out of supported projects, with a user choosing what exactly he wants to support, at his own desire/pace. Kickstarter does work, so it ain't a myth. Would work if license goes to GPL-only and all "DLCs" exchanged for the mention in credits/forming the features one needs.

Hm,.. can't put a "my dish of soup"-disclamer as a signature for the lack of signature support here, but just mentioning it anyway.

Comment

Then you have a distro, than needs to be paid to keep updating, or it be a freemium split with ads, then possible centos-ish split with a RHate of upstream, everyone slowing down and exchanging "wishes"; - instead of having a free OS out of supported projects, with a user choosing what exactly he wants to support, at his own desire/pace. Kickstarter does work, so it ain't a myth. Would work if license goes to GPL-only and all "DLCs" exchanged for the mention in credits/forming the features one needs.

Hm,.. can't put a "my dish of soup"-disclamer as a signature for the lack of signature support here, but just mentioning it anyway.

I'm not against your original post, brosis, I do think that's not the right way to commercialize (mostly because I don't see that working), I only argued that it doesn't look like they are trying to infringe the GPL.